Arizona, State of et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 30

* MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on behalf of all named non-government defendants by Arizona Medical Marijuana Association. (Michelman, Scott)*Entry modified to lack of jurisdiction on 7/7/2011 (ESL).

Scott Michelman (admitted pro hac vice)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
1101 Pacific Ave. Ste. 333; Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[phone]
[e-mail]
Daniel J. Pochoda (SBA No. 021979)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
77 E. Columbus St. Ste. 205; Phoenix, AZ 85012
[phone]
[e-mail]
Lisa T. Hauser (SBA No. 006985)
Cameron C. Artigue (SBA No. 011376)
GAMMAGE & BURNHAM
Two North Central, 15th Fl.; Phoenix, AZ 85004
[phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant Arizona Medical
Marijuana Association
Thomas W. Dean (SBA No. 015700)
Post Office Box J; Flagstaff, AZ 86002
[phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant Arizona Association of
Dispensary Professionals

Ken Frakes (SBA No. 021776)
ROSE LAW GROUP, PC
6613 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 200
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
[phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendants Serenity
Arizona, Holistic Health
Management, Levine,
Pennypacker, Flores,
Christensen, Pollock, and Silva

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
STATE OF ARIZONA; JANICE K. BREWER;
WILL HUMBLE; ROBERT C. HALLIDAY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES; U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE;
ERIC H. HOLDER; DENNIS K. BURKE; ARIZ.
ASS’N OF DISPENSARY PROFESSIONALS,
INC.; JOSHUA LEVINE; PAULA
PENNYPACKER; NICHOLAS FLORES; JANE
CHRISTENSEN; PAULA POLLOCK;
SERENITY ARIZONA, INC.; HOLISTIC
HEALTH MGMT, INC.; JEFF SILVA; ARIZ.
MEDICAL MARIJUANA ASS’N; DOES I-XX,
Defendants.

No. CV-11-01072-PHX-SRB
Hon. Susan R. Bolton
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION AND FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM, WITH
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES
Oral Argument Requested

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, undersigned counsel state on
behalf of all Defendants joining in this motion that none of the nongovernmental
corporate parties joining in this motion has any parent corporation or any publicly held
corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock. A supplemental disclosure statement
will be filed upon any change in the information provided herein.
/s/ Scott Michelman
Scott Michelman (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
1101 Pacific Avenue, Suite 333
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[phone]
Counsel for Defendant Arizona Medical Marijuana
Association
/s/ Thomas W. Dean
Thomas W. Dean (SBA No. 015700)
[e-mail]
Post Office Box J
Flagstaff, AZ 86002
[phone]
Counsel for Defendant Arizona Association of
Dispensary Professionals
/s/ Ken Frakes
Ken Frakes (SBA No. 021776)
[e-mail]
ROSE LAW GROUP, PC
6613 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 200
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
[phone]
Counsel for Defendants Serenity Arizona, Holistic
Health Management, Levine, Pennypacker, Flores,
Christensen, Pollock, and Silva

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................................ii
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................ 1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................... 3
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 4
I. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because A State Cannot Use Federal Court Either To
Obtain An Advisory Opinion Or To Validate Or Invalidate Its Own Law, And Because
This Matter Is Unripe. .................................................................................................. 4
A. The State’s Failure To Take A Position Reveals The Absence Of A Case Or
Controversy: Rather, The State Requests An Advisory Opinion................................ 5
B. The Federal Courts Will Not Adjudicate A State’s Attempt To Validate Or
Invalidate Its Own Law............................................................................................. 7
C. Because State Officials Do Not – And May Never – Face A Concrete Threat Of
Prosecution, This Suit Is Unripe................................................................................ 9
II. Even If Jurisdiction Lies, The State Has Failed To State A Viable Claim, Because
Neither Of Its Requested Declarations Would Be Legally Correct.............................. 11
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 17

i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937) ....................................................... 5
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) ................................. 5
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ............................................................................. 5, 6
Baxley v. Rutland, 409 F. Supp. 1249 (M.D. Ala. 1976)................................................... 9
City of Garden Grove v. Super. Ct., 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 656 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) .............. 16
Clinton v. Acequia, Inc., 94 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 1996) ....................................................... 9
County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 461 (Cal. Ct. App.
2008).....................................................................................................

15, 16

Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) ........................................ 16
Donelon v. La. Div. of Admin. Law ex rel. Wise, 522 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2008)................. 8
Fed. Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) ........................................................ 6
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983)....................... 8
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006)...................................................................... 17
Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................... 4
Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792)................................................................................. 7
Illinois v. City of Chicago, 137 F.3d 474 (7th Cir. 1998).................................................. 8
Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness of Cal., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 611 F. Supp.
315 (C.D. Cal. 1984) .................................................................................................... 8
Lancey v. United States, 356 F.2d 407 (9th Cir. 1966) ................................................... 14
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007)............................................... 5
Missouri ex rel. Mo. Hwy. & Transp. Comm’n v. Cuffley, 112 F.3d 1332 (8th Cir. 1997) 8
Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911)................................................................. 7
Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961)................................................................................. 9
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).................................................................. 17
Qualified Patients Ass’n v. City of Anaheim, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 89 (Cal. Ct. App.
2010).................................................................................................................... 12, 16
Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2002)........................... 7
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947) ................................................... 12
ii

S. Blasting Servs., Inc. v. Wilkes County, 288 F.3d 584 (4th Cir. 2002).......................... 15
San Diego County Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) ................ 10
Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (1984) .............................................. 12, 15
Smith v. Indiana, 191 U.S. 138 (1903) ............................................................................. 8
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998).............................................. 7
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947).................................................... 9
United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (N.D. Cal. 1998)......... 12
United States v. Ciambrone, 750 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1984) ........................................... 14
United States v. Lennick, 18 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 1994) .................................................... 13
United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................... 14
United States v. Marbella, 73 F.3d 1508 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................ 15
United States v. Mich. Dep’t of Cmty. Health, No. 1:10–mc–109, 2011 WL 2182418
(W.D. Mich. June 3, 2011) ......................................................................................... 14
United States v. Rosenberg, 515 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1975) .............................................. 12
United States v. Rosenthal, 454 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................... 12
United States v. Singh, 532 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008).................................................... 13
Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009) ........................................................................ 15
Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 2 ................................................................................................................. 13
18 U.S.C. § 3 ................................................................................................................. 13
18 U.S.C. § 4 ................................................................................................................. 14
18 U.S.C. § 371 ............................................................................................................. 13
18 U.S.C. § 1956............................................................................................................ 14
21 U.S.C. § 812 ............................................................................................................. 13
21 U.S.C. § 841 ............................................................................................................. 13
21 U.S.C. § 841(a) ........................................................................................................... 3
21 U.S.C. § 843(b)......................................................................................................... 13
21 U.S.C. § 844(a) ........................................................................................................... 3
21 U.S.C. § 846 ............................................................................................................. 13
iii

21 U.S.C. § 856 ............................................................................................................. 13
21 U.S.C. § 903 ................................................................................................... 3, 12, 15
A.R.S. § 36-664 ............................................................................................................. 14
A.R.S. § 36-2220 ........................................................................................................... 14
A.R.S. § 36-2803 ............................................................................................................. 3
A.R.S. § 36-2804 ............................................................................................................. 4
A.R.S. §§ 36-2804.01-.05 ................................................................................................ 4
A.R.S. § 36-2806 ............................................................................................................. 4
A.R.S. § 36-2807 ............................................................................................................. 4
A.R.S. § 36-2809 ............................................................................................................. 4
A.R.S. § 36-2810 ............................................................................................................. 4
A.R.S. § 36-2811 ............................................................................................................. 3
A.R.S. § 36-2817 ............................................................................................................. 4
A.R.S. § 36-3005(A)(3) ................................................................................................. 14
Other Authorities
13B Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3566 (3d
ed. 2008) ...................................................................................................................... 8
Howard Fischer, Federal Prosecutor: Brewer, Horne Twisting Medical Marijuana
Memo, East Valley Tribune.com, May 26, 2011................................................... 10, 11
Mary K. Reinhart, Ariz. To Sue Over Medical-pot Law, Ariz. Republic, May 27, 2011.. 11
Memo. of Deputy Att’y Gen. James M. Cole (June 29, 2011) ........................................ 11

iv

Defendants Arizona Medical Marijuana Association, Arizona Association of
Dispensary Professionals, Serenity Arizona, Holistic Health Management, Joshua Levine,
Paula Pennypacker, Nicholas Flores, Jane Christensen, Paula Pollock, and Jeff Silva
hereby move, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), to dismiss
this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or in the alternative for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This is a peculiar case. The voters of Arizona, joining 15 other states and the
District of Columbia in heeding mounting evidence of the efficacy of marijuana as
medicine, have chosen to decriminalize and regulate the use of marijuana for medical
purposes. Federal law forbids the possession, cultivation, transportation, or sale of
marijuana, and federal prosecutors across the country have issued inconsistent statements
about whether they will seek to prosecute state-compliant medical marijuana users,
growers and distributors. U.S. Attorneys in Washington State have even implied that
state officials regulating medical marijuana there could face prosecution. Although the
U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona has made no such claim, Arizona professes
concern about its officials’ potential liability under federal law. At first glance, this
situation may look like a concrete legal dispute: federal legislative intransigence in the
face of the reasoned judgment of approximately one third of the states has combined with
mixed signals from federal law enforcement to foster legal uncertainty, stifle scientific
development, and worst of all burden seriously ill patients for whom medical marijuana
provides unique relief.
1

What makes this lawsuit peculiar is that, instead of waiting for an actual threat of
prosecution against Arizona officials and instead of seeking a judicial ruling that federal
law simply does not criminalize the actions of state officials implementing Arizona’s
medical marijuana law, Arizona and its officials have asked this Court for either of two
different declaratory judgments: either that compliance with its medical marijuana law
provides a “safe harbor” against federal prosecution, or that the state law is preempted
entirely. But this is a false choice: the invalidity of one of these alternatives does not
imply the correctness of the other; in fact, neither declaration would be legally correct.
Stranger still, Arizona does not seem to profess any preference between the two.
These various novelties of Arizona’s lawsuit doom it to fail.
Regarding jurisdiction, first, Arizona’s refusal to take a concrete position
supporting either of the two requested, diametrically opposed declarations deprives this
lawsuit of a genuine controversy between plaintiffs and defendants. Without a view of its
own, Arizona is merely asking this Court to resolve “uncertainty” in the law – in other
words, to issue an impermissible advisory opinion. Second, even if there were a case or
controversy, state officials cannot use the federal courts as a vehicle either to validate, or
to attack, their own laws. Third, since no state official faces a genuine threat of
prosecution, the lawsuit is unripe.
If this Court reaches the merits, Arizona’s two alternative requests for relief are
both foreclosed by law. State law cannot immunize federal criminal conduct. Nor would
the nullification of Arizona’s law on the basis of federal preemption be legally correct.
There is no conflict between state and federal law here, as it is possible to comply with
2

both state and federal law, and federal law enforcement can proceed against violators of
federal law just as easily whether the state prohibits the same conduct or not. To hold
otherwise would contravene the Tenth Amendment by forcing the criminal codes of the
sovereign states to march in lockstep with federal criminal law.
For these reasons, this Court should dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction or in
the alternative for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) criminalizes the possession,
cultivation, transportation, or sale of marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 844(a) . But
the CSA also allows the states to continue their longstanding practice of enacting varying
drug laws: preemption under the CSA is limited to the narrow set of circumstances in
which there is a “positive conflict” between state and federal law. 21 U.S.C. § 903.
Thus, Congress accorded the states wide latitude to define the scope of their own penal
drug laws and to decide how to enforce them.
In 2010, the voters of Arizona enacted the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
(“AMMA” or “Act”), which narrowed the reach of state marijuana law by exempting
seriously ill Arizonans, as well as their caregivers, from prosecution under state law for
the cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medical purposes. A.R.S. § 362811. It also exempts from criminal penalties a limited number of certified, nonprofit
medical marijuana dispensaries for the purpose of serving qualifying patients. Id.
The Act charges the Arizona Department of Health Services (“ADHS”) with
implementation of the program. See A.R.S. § 36-2803. The Act requires ADHS to
3

process applications of prospective patients, caregivers, and dispensary agents, and issue
registry identification cards to eligible applicants. A.R.S. §§ 36-2804.01-.05. ADHS
must develop a secure online system through which law enforcement and dispensary
agents may verify identification cards. A.R.S. § 36-2807. ADHS must process
applications from, and in some cases certify, prospective nonprofit medical marijuana
dispensaries. A.R.S. §§ 36-2804, 36-2806. ADHS must protect the confidentiality of
identifying information obtained in the registration process; administer a “medical
marijuana fund” by collecting various fees, fines, and donations; and report to the state
legislature annually about the program. A.R.S. §§ 36-2809, 36-2810, 36-2817. Nothing
in the AMMA or any other state law purports to exempt qualifying patients, designated
caregivers, or dispensary agents from arrest or prosecution under federal law.
On May 27, 2011, despite the absence of any indication that any Arizona official
could face federal criminal liability for enforcing the AMMA, Arizona and a number of
its officials (collectively, “the state” or “Plaintiffs”) filed this lawsuit for declaratory
relief, seeking a ruling either that state law immunizes any violations of federal law or
that the AMMA is itself preempted by federal law.
ARGUMENT
I. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because A State Cannot Use Federal Court Either
To Obtain An Advisory Opinion Or To Validate Or Invalidate Its Own Law, And
Because This Matter Is Unripe.
“A lawsuit seeking federal declaratory relief must first present an actual case or
controversy within the meaning of Article III[.]” Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133
F.3d 1220, 1222-23 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (citation omitted).
4

According to the complaint, the state seeks either of two diametrically opposed
declaratory judgments: in its own words, the state requests that the Court hold either that
“strict compliance and participation by citizens and state employees in the AMMA
provides a safe harbor from federal prosecution,” or that “the AMMA is preempted” by
federal law. Compl. ¶ 32; see also id. ¶ 170 (seeking “a declaration ... whether the
AMMA complies with federal law ... or whether the AMMA should be declared
preempted[.]”). The nature of this request, combined with the absence of a specific threat
of prosecution of state employees, exposes three fundamental jurisdictional flaws in the
state’s lawsuit.
A. The State’s Failure To Take A Position Reveals The Absence Of A Case
Or Controversy: Rather, The State Requests An Advisory Opinion.
The first difficulty with the state’s position is that it does not have a position at all.
The state has asked this Court either to uphold or strike down its law, but the state seems
not to care which alternative this Court chooses. In the very case upholding the
constitutionality of the Declaratory Judgment Act the state here seeks to employ, the
Supreme Court explained that a matter is justiciable under Article III only where “[t]he
controversy [is] definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having
adverse legal interests.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-41 (1937)
(emphasis added, citation omitted); accord, e.g., MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007); Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289,
298 (1979). This is necessary “to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of
difficult ... questions[.]” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962).
5

Here, the state takes no position on whether its law is constitutional, and thus has
not established itself as a genuine adversary to any of the myriad entities it has named as
defendants. Tellingly, the state avers that “[a] controversy has arisen and now exists
between Plaintiffs and Defendants and, indeed among Defendants, relating to their rights
and duties.” Compl. ¶ 169 (emphasis added). Having named two sets of John Doe
parties defined by their opposing interests – as defined by the state, Does I-X support the
AMMA, and Does XI-XX oppose it, see Compl. ¶¶ 167-68 – the state can make the
logical (if circular) claim that a conflict exists “among Defendants.” But that is not the
test of a case or controversy: a dispute must exist between defendants and plaintiffs. See,
e.g., Fed. Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 20 (1998) (“[C]ourts will not pass
upon abstract, intellectual problems, but adjudicate concrete, living contests between
adversaries.” (citations, internal quotation marks, and source’s alteration marks omitted,
and emphasis added)). The state seems to hope that the Court will allow some conflict
among any subset of the parties to qualify. But it is impossible for the state to litigate
with “concrete adverseness,” Baker, 369 U.S. at 204, if it is indifferent to the outcome of
its lawsuit.
In fact, the only interest of its own the state has identified is to “ascertain [its]
rights and duties,” Compl. ¶ 171, or the resolution of legal “uncertainty.” Compl. ¶ 165;
see also id. ¶ 28 (demanding “reasonable certainty with respect to the application of both
state and federal law”). This abstract interest in legal “certainty” does not a case or
controversy make. A suit seeking nothing but “certainty” is by definition asking this
Court to render an advisory opinion – a practice “disapproved by [the Supreme] Court
6

from the beginning” of the Republic. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S.
83, 101 (1998) (citing Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), and Hayburn’s
Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792)).
In sum, the state has no position regarding how this Court should answer the
question the state has asked; the state desires only that the question be answered. This
posture reveals the absence of a genuine and concrete controversy between plaintiffs and
defendants, and reduces this lawsuit to a plea for an impermissible advisory opinion.
B. The Federal Courts Will Not Adjudicate A State’s Attempt To Validate
Or Invalidate Its Own Law.
In addition to the state’s failure to allege a concrete dispute between plaintiffs and
defendants, there is a second jurisdictional flaw here: federal courts do not adjudicate
suits by state officials or entities either to validate or to invalidate a state law, or
(relatedly) suits in which state officials express abstract policy disagreements with a law.
As to suits asking a federal court to declare a state law valid or invalid in light of
federal law, the decision in Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086 (9th
Cir. 2002), is controlling. There, plaintiffs asked the court to declare that a particular law
of Guam was valid based on the powers apportioned to the branches of the Guamanian
government by federal law, but the Ninth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction over a suit
simply to declare the validity of a local law under federal law. Id. at 1089-90.
The Supreme Court has explained this important limitation on federal jurisdiction:
There are good reasons why the federal courts should not entertain suits by the
States to declare the validity of their regulations despite possibly conflicting
federal law. States are not significantly prejudiced by an inability to come to
federal court for a declaratory judgment in advance of a possible injunctive suit by
a person subject to federal regulation. They have a variety of means by which they
7

can enforce their own laws in their own courts, and they do not suffer if the
preemption questions such enforcement may raise are tested there.
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 21 (1983); accord,
Missouri ex rel. Mo. Hwy. & Transp. Comm’n v. Cuffley, 112 F.3d 1332 (8th Cir. 1997)
(“[A] declaratory judgment suit brought by a state to uphold the constitutionality of its
action is not within the federal-question jurisdiction of the federal courts.”); Int’l Soc’y
for Krishna Consciousness of Cal., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 611 F. Supp. 315, 318
(C.D. Cal. 1984); 13B Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure:
Jurisdiction § 3566, at 286 (3d ed. 2008) (“[T]here is no federal jurisdiction of a suit by a
state for a declaration of the validity of state law[.]”).
Nor can state officials use the federal courts to vindicate a policy disagreement
with their own state’s law, except where a state official has a concrete personal stake in
the issue. See, e.g., Smith v. Indiana, 191 U.S. 138, 149 (1903) (county tax auditor
lacked standing to challenge a state property tax statute in federal court because the
performance or nonperformance of the auditor’s duties under the challenged law was “of
no personal benefit to him”); Donelon v. La. Div. of Admin. Law ex rel. Wise, 522 F.3d
564, 566 (5th Cir. 2008) (“[S]tate officials lack standing to challenge the constitutional
validity of a state statute when they are not adversely affected by the statute, and their
interest in the litigation is official, rather than personal.”); see generally Illinois v. City of
Chicago, 137 F.3d 474, 476 (7th Cir. 1998) (Easterbrook, J.) (“How can a state complain
about its own statute? Relieving a state of the consequences of a self-inflicted wound
would be a novel mission for a federal court[.]”); Baxley v. Rutland, 409 F. Supp. 1249,

8

1257 (M.D. Ala. 1976) (“May the State attack in federal court its own statutes as
violative of the Constitution of the United States? That seems incongruous.”).
Here, the alleged personal interest of the state’s officials is in whether they could
be prosecuted by the federal government for discharging their duties under state law. But
this personal interest is not directed at the validity or invalidity of state law; the personal
interest concerns the state officials’ potential liability under federal law. See Compl. ¶
28. Therefore the Plaintiffs have no personal interest in the validity or invalidity of state
law, and it is inappropriate for a federal court to adjudicate an abstract attempt to have the
state’s law declared valid or invalid.
C. Because State Officials Do Not – And May Never – Face A Concrete
Threat Of Prosecution, This Suit Is Unripe.
Even assuming there is a controversy capable of adjudication here, the controversy
is not yet ripe for adjudication. “[A] case is not ripe where the existence of the dispute
itself hangs on future contingencies that may or may not occur.” Clinton v. Acequia, Inc.,
94 F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 1996). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that challenges
to the validity of criminal laws are unripe when prosecution is speculative. See, e.g.,
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 91 (1947) (challenge to bar on
government employee political activities unripe where “[n]o threat of interference ... with
rights of these appellants appears beyond that implied by the existence of the law and the
regulations”); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 501-02 (1961) (plurality opinion) (challenge
to ban on contraceptive devices unripe because no prosecution under the challenged law
was pending and only one prosecution had ever been brought under the law). Likewise,
the Ninth Circuit has held that a challenge to a criminal law is nonjusticiable where
9

plaintiffs lack intent to violate the law and there is neither a specific threat of prosecution
nor a history of prosecution under the law. See San Diego County Gun Rights Comm. v.
Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126-29 (9th Cir. 1996). “Significantly, the mere possibility of
criminal sanctions applying does not of itself create a case or controversy.” Id. at 1126
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the state asks the Court to interpret the federal Controlled Substances Act
prior to any enforcement action being taken or threatened by the United States against the
state or any of its employees. Plaintiffs note that federal prosecutors in other judicial
districts have implied the possibility of prosecution of another state’s officials under a
proposed regulatory regime different from Arizona’s. Compl. ¶ 113; Howard Fischer,
Federal Prosecutor: Brewer, Horne Twisting Medical Marijuana Memo, East Valley
Tribune.com, May 26, 2011 (noting the differences between Washington and Arizona
law, as explained by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington). 1 But it is
simply not the case that threats of enforcement against someone – anyone – can stand in
for a threat of enforcement against the plaintiffs themselves. In fact, Arizona’s
Department of Health Services asked the U.S. Attorney’s office for guidance regarding
whether Arizona state employees involved in implementing and administering the
AMMA might be subjected to federal prosecution. Compl. ¶ 24. In the response letter
from Dennis Burke, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, state employees were
conspicuously absent from the categories of persons and organizations listed as subject to
federal prosecution under the CSA. Compl. ¶ 25 & Ex. B. This omission was
1

Available at: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/politics/article_62e3877a-87ee11e0-95eb-001cc4c03286.html.
10

intentional, Mr. Burke subsequently confirmed. See Fischer, supra (quoting Dennis
Burke: “It’s fair to read into my letter what I included and what I didn’t. And if I didn’t
include state employees, I think that’s telling in itself.”). In fact, on the day this case was
filed, Mr. Burke made clear he does not intend to prosecute state workers. See Mary K.
Reinhart, Ariz. To Sue Over Medical-pot Law, Ariz. Republic, May 27, 2011, at B1
(quoting Dennis Burke: “We have no intention of targeting or going after people who are
implementing or who are in compliance with state law.” (emphasis added)).2 Subsequent
Department of Justice guidance about state medical marijuana laws has made no mention
of the possibility that state officials could be prosecuted. See Memo. of Deputy Att’y
Gen. James M. Cole (June 29, 2011).3
The possibility that Arizona state employees might be prosecuted for fulfilling
their duties under the AMMA is purely speculative and not sufficiently concrete to
generate a “case or controversy.” Therefore this action should be dismissed as unripe.
II. Even If Jurisdiction Lies, The State Has Failed To State A Viable Claim,
Because Neither Of Its Requested Declarations Would Be Legally Correct.
The state’s two alternatively-stated requests for relief – either declare the state law
void or declare that “strict compliance and participation in the AMMA provide[] a safe
harbor from federal prosecution,” Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶ B – present a false choice
between two legally incorrect results.

2

Available at: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/05/27/
20110527arizona-medical-marijuana-federal-lawsuit.html.
3
Available at: http://www.aclu.org/files/drugpolicy/june_2011_guidance_regarding_
medical_mariju.pdf.
11

First, the existence of a state statute decriminalizing certain conduct cannot
provide a “safe harbor” from federal laws criminalizing that conduct. State law cannot
immunize a violation of federal law. See United States v. Rosenthal, 454 F.3d 943, 948
(9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Rosenberg, 515 F.2d 190, 198 n.14 (9th Cir. 1975);
United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1100 (N.D. Cal. 1998).
But neither does the fact that federal law criminalizes certain conduct prevent
states from making their own choices about what conduct to criminalize under state law.
On the contrary: federal preemption analysis “start[s] with the assumption that the
historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by [a] Federal Act unless
that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.,
331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947). Here, the intent of Congress is very much the opposite: the
CSA contains an anti-preemption provision expressly disclaiming preemptive intent
“unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State
law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.” 21 U.S.C. § 903.
This type of “positive conflict” arises “when it is impossible to comply with both
state and federal law.” Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 248 (1984). The
AMMA does not create such an impossibility. “A claim of positive conflict might gain
more traction if the [AMMA] required ... individuals to possess, cultivate, transport,
possess for sale, or sell medical marijuana in a manner that violated federal law.”
Qualified Patients Ass’n v. City of Anaheim, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 89, 106 (Cal. Ct. App.
2010). But even though we may assume some Arizonans wish to do some of these
things, nothing in the AMMA requires anyone to do any of these things. And all that
12

state officials must do under the AMMA is engage in normal regulatory functions where
individuals and dispensaries seek to obtain registrations to comply with state law.
The state suggests that the AMMA may force Arizona officials to commit any of a
number of federal offenses, including manufacturing, possessing, or distributing
marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841 ; using a communication facility to commit CSA
violations, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b); and allowing a building to be used for the manufacturing,
storage, distribution, or use of a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 856. Compl. ¶¶ 65-68,
70. Yet nothing in the AMMA requires state officials – nor, for that matter, anyone else
– to manufacture, distribute, or possess marijuana, or to use a communication facility, or
maintain premises to do any of these things. The state further alleges that the AMMA
could expose state officials to federal conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and accessory
liabilities. Compl. ¶¶ 69, 71-73 (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 371, and 21 U.S.C. § 846). But
conspiracy is an offense of specific intent, requiring that a defendant make “an agreement
to accomplish an illegal objective” and also that he “intend[] to help accomplish it.”
Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 635 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). “[S]imple knowledge, approval of, or acquiescence in the object or
purpose of a conspiracy” is insufficient. United States v. Lennick, 18 F.3d 814, 818 (9th
Cir. 1994). Similarly, the crime of aiding and abetting requires that the defendant intend
to facilitate the commission of a crime by another and wish to bring it about. See United
States v. Singh, 532 F.3d 1053, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2008); Conant, 309 F.3d at 635-36.
Finally, accessory liability requires that the defendant specifically intend to frustrate the
efforts of law enforcement officers. United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1076 (9th
13

Cir. 2007). Under the AMMA, state officials may easily fulfill their ministerial
responsibilities of issuing identification cards and certifying dispensaries without
possessing the mens rea for any federal offense.
The state also suggests that state officials may be exposed to liability under federal
statutes prohibiting concealing a felony (“misprision”) and money laundering. Compl. ¶¶
74-75 (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 1956). But misprision of felony requires the defendant to
have full knowledge of the commission of a felony and take affirmative steps to conceal
it. See, e.g., United States v. Ciambrone, 750 F.2d 1416, 1417-18 (9th Cir. 1984). The
state describes this provision as a requirement of “reporting wrongdoing,” Compl. ¶ 82,
but it is in fact no such thing: “Mere silence, without some affirmative act, is
insufficient.” Lancey v. United States, 356 F.2d 407, 410 (9th Cir. 1966). Respecting
confidentiality does not constitute an affirmative act necessary for misprision.4 Indeed,
many Arizona statutes require state officials to protect the confidentiality of information
whether or not it is evidence of a federal felony; accepting the state’s argument here
would cast doubt on the constitutionality of all of these laws. See, e.g., A.R.S. §§ 36-664
(information regarding communicable disease is confidential); 36-2220 (patient
information regarding Emergency Medical Services is confidential); 36-3005(A)(3)
(information regarding individuals served by domestic violence shelter is confidential).
Last, to commit the crime of money laundering, one must engage in a financial
transaction knowing the money involved was of unlawful origin and intending to promote
4

One court recently found a state confidentiality statute preempted by federal law, but
only to the extent that it interferes with a specific federal investigatory subpoena, not
because of a conflict with 18 U.S.C. § 4. See United States v. Mich. Dep’t of Cmty.
Health, No. 1:10–mc–109, 2011 WL 2182418, at *13 (W.D. Mich. June 3, 2011).
14

or conceal the unlawful activity. United States v. Marbella, 73 F.3d 1508, 1514 (9th Cir.
1996). Administering the AMMA’s medical marijuana fund requires ADHS employees
to engage in financial transactions, but state officials will have no ability to know the
origin of the funds, much less an intent to conceal or promote unlawful activity. Thus,
the AMMA does not require anyone to launder money. The Supreme Court has recently
reiterated that “[i]mpossibility pre-emption is a demanding [standard].” Wyeth v. Levine,
129 S. Ct. 1187, 1199 (2009). Having failed to show how state law requires them to do
what federal law forbids, Plaintiffs have not satisfied that demanding standard.
Nor does the theory of “obstacle preemption” – i.e., “where the state law stands as
an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,”
Silkwood, 464 U.S. at 248 – apply to the AMMA. Obstacle preemption fails as a
threshold matter because Congress limited the scope of CSA preemption to
circumstances in which “there is a positive conflict between [a CSA provision] and [a]
State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.” 21 U.S.C. § 903 (emphasis
added). This language indicates Congress intended to preempt only state laws in positive
conflict with the CSA, and no others. See County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, 81
Cal. Rptr. 3d 461, 478-81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2380 (2009); see
also S. Blasting Servs., Inc. v. Wilkes County, 288 F.3d 584, 590-91 (4th Cir. 2002)
(interpreting materially identical language as allowing only impossibility preemption).
And even if Congress had intended obstacle preemption to apply at all under the
CSA, it would not apply here, because the AMMA’s system of state regulation for state
purposes does not in any way interfere with federal enforcement of federal crimes.
15

“[O]bstacle preemption only applies if the state enactment undermines or conflicts with
federal law to such an extent that its purposes ‘cannot otherwise be accomplished[.]’”
Qualified Patients Ass’n, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 108 (quoting Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign
Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 373 (2000)). Clearly, the objectives of the CSA may
otherwise be accomplished notwithstanding the AMMA: federal officers may continue to
investigate, arrest and prosecute those who possess, cultivate, transport, possess for sale,
or sell medical marijuana in violation of federal law. All Arizona has done is to indicate
that certain marijuana-related violations of the federal CSA are not violations of state
law, even as other marijuana-related CSA violations remain violations of state law. To
keep track of which are which, the state issues identification cards and registrations that
have significance for the purposes of state law enforcement. But these documents do not
purport to exempt anyone from the requirements of federal law. Though state officials
enforcing state law must pay heed to the distinction between criminal and non-criminal
marijuana cultivation under state law, federal officers may of course ignore Arizona’s
law when enforcing federal law, and continue to investigate, arrest and prosecute
violators. See County of San Diego, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 481-83 (CSA does not preempt
California law requiring counties to issue identification cards to qualifying patients); City
of Garden Grove v. Super. Ct., 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 656, 677 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (rejecting
preemption challenge to California medical marijuana law, because “[e]nforcement of the
CSA can continue as it did prior to” the state law’s passage (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 623 (2008). It is no harder for federal
authorities to enforce federal law whether the violators have state registrations or not.
16

Moreover, the fact state and federal criminal law do not march in lockstep does
not create a conflict; on the contrary, under the Tenth Amendment, “[e]ven where
Congress has the authority ... to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks
the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts.” Printz v. United
States, 521 U.S. 898, 924 (1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). If
federal prohibition of certain conduct could preempt a state’s decriminalization of that
same conduct, the result would be precisely what Printz forbids: federal law would force
states to enact matching criminal prohibitions. Under this theory, the scope of
preemption in the field of criminal law would be staggering: preemption would arise
from each of the “countless ... federal criminal provisions [prohibiting] conduct that
happens not to be forbidden under state law.” Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 290
(2006) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In sum, neither of the state’s requested declarations from this court – either the
“safe harbor” declaration, or federal preemption – would be legally correct. Therefore
the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should dismiss this action either for lack of
jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

17

Dated: July 7, 2011

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Scott Michelman
Scott Michelman (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
1101 Pacific Avenue, Suite 333
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[phone]
Daniel J. Pochoda (SBA No. 021979)
dpochoda@acluaz. org
ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
77 E. Columbus Street, Suite 205
Phoenix, AZ 85012
[phone]
Lisa T. Hauser (SBA No. 006985)
[e-mail]
Cameron C. Artigue (SBA No. 011376)
[e-mail]
GAMMAGE & BURNHAM
Two North Central, 15th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85004
[phone]
Counsel for Defendant Arizona Medical Marijuana
Association
/s/ Thomas W. Dean
Thomas W. Dean (SBA No. 015700)
[e-mail]
Post Office Box J
Flagstaff, AZ 86002
[phone]
Counsel for Defendant Arizona Association of
Dispensary Professionals

/s/ Ken Frakes
Ken Frakes (SBA No. 021776)
[e-mail]
ROSE LAW GROUP, PC
6613 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 200
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
[phone]
Counsel for Defendants Serenity Arizona, Holistic
Health Management, Levine, Pennypacker, Flores,
Christensen, Pollock, and Silva

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 7, 2011, I electronically transmitted the attached
document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, thereby serving a
Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrants:
Aubrey Joy Corcoran
Office of the Attorney General
1275 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85007
602-542-8890
Email: [e-mail]
Kevin D. Ray
Office of the Attorney General
Education and Health Section - Health Unit
1275 W. Washington St, Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926
602-542-8328
Email: [e-mail]
Lori Simpson Davis
Office of the Attorney General
1275 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85007
602-542-7668
Email: [e-mail]
I also certify that I caused the attached document to be sent by U.S. postal mail
and electronic mail to:
Scott Risner
Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001
202-514-2395
Email: [e-mail]
/s/ Scott Michelman
Scott Michelman (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
1101 Pacific Avenue, Suite 333
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[phone]